URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52 Title: #52: CI: Remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist
fidencio commented: """ On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:51 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com> wrote: > On (17/10/16 14:43), fidencio wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:37 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com> > wrote: > > > >> On (17/10/16 14:26), fidencio wrote: > >> >On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On (17/10/16 12:34), fidencio wrote: > >> >> >Please, refer to e1a58f3d in the commit message. > >> >> > > >> >> Why? The text is more important. Rest is useless. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Well, you're basically reverting that commit. > >> >But feel free to ignore in any case. > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >This is a genuine question (even in case it's a dumb one), but do we > >> >> really need to call dlclose() in our tests? Can't we relax this in > >> order to > >> >> have a meaningful backtrace? > >> >> > > >> >> Let assume: > >> >> * dlclose was not called > >> >> * libraryA is linked with libtalloc and libtevent > >> >> * libraryB is not linked with libtalloc (even though it should be > >> >> * dlopen test test libraries in following order: 1. libraryA; 2. > >> libraryB > >> >> > >> >> Result: missing dependency in libraryB would not be found because > >> >> libraryA and its dependencies are still loaded in memory. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Wouldn't make sense to have two tests then? One as it is nowadays. In > case > >> >the first passes we run the second one, not calling dlclose() and just > >> >checking for leaks? > >> > > >> What would be a purpose of second test? > >> Leaks are not checked in tests itself but by valgrind. > >> > > > >By not calling dlclose() during the second run couldn't you have a "not > >meaningless" (part of the) backtrace? > > > If you can reproduce any valgrind error reported by dlopen-test > then we can consider to do it. Otherwise NACK to the idea. > I do not want to implement something which I cannot verify whether it work > or > no. > Then I'm truly lost here, sorry. If you think we cannot reproduce any valgrind error reported by dlopen-test why should we remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist in the first place? """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52#issuecomment-254346344
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
